Do we need privacy?

1. The state or condition of being free from being observed or disturbed by other people.
2. The state of being free from public attention.

So, it's a form of freedom. I find it deeply controversial.

Does it mean that we should not pay attention to each other? There are stories on internet of people dying in subway from heart attack in the midst of a crowd passing by.

Is it possible? We leave traces behind us every minute - online, when we use credit cards to buy something, even by walking in the street with a cell phone in our pocket. Why are we outraged or feel threatened when we find out that someone "is watching"? Perhaps, it goes deeper in our psyche that we think or can explain.

What is the difference between privacy and secrecy? When and why do we need them?

Some people put their whole life online. Some are cautious about giving any personal information to anyone. Ironically, we can protect ourselves from oppression and crime both ways.

What's your attitude towards privacy? I would appreciate the links to videos and sources on this topic.

Jun 16 2013:
I heard a very thoughtful statement on a news program this morning about this very issue. The statement was: "If you want privacy then you can't have Google- you can't have both!"
The more I thought about that the more I realized, how true that statement was, but it goes further then that. The only real way you can obtain complete privacy & secrecy, is to be a hermit far far back in the woods & mountains and even then, someone will know about you.
I may not like it but I have learned to live with it- to a point at least!

Jun 16 2013:
Good point, Gale - nowadays, we just can't have our cake and eat it too.
So when does security turn into a police state? I read recently that the Netherlands taps more phones than any other country in the world... It ain't all windmills, wooden shoes and cheese out here, there's more data collecting and privacy invasion here than the states, apparently! Every citizen is required to spontaneously produce an ID if asked, regardless of whether you're 80 years, or 8 months old.
And somehow, none of this makes me feel any more secure...

Jun 18 2013:
What's brewing in your country Liz that requires this? Apparently my nowhere country has this too but if the day comes when i'm asked i think i'll just fake a "No Engish" phrase but that only works on the british imported cops.

Jun 19 2013:
Ken, I ask myself the same thing... I can't imagine in a socialist system like this ine, where everyone understands the need to help each other out, that this is necessary. It is a multi-cultural society and yet becoming more and more discriminitive... It seems there is a direct correlation between extreme nationalism and the recession. Anyone else seeing this?

Jun 25 2013:
Sometimes, we are so effective in preventing other people from "spreading lies" that we become deaf to the truth. Or, rather, there is no truth to hear any more... there is nothing to hear at all...

Here is a true fact: the last on-topic comment in this conversation was made 2 days ago.

I'm still interested to hear some fresh opinions. But if, after reading this thread, you decide that it's best to keep them to yourself, I wouldn't blame you :-).

Comment deleted

Jun 21 2013:
Interlesting Carol but damn it your bang on, this may sound stupid but my privacy online digitally mirrors what you said, a formulation space. Not that that was what you meant or was trying to say. I wonder if we need space or a buffer before we install, an interesting thought to dally with.

The less moderated a platform is the more "behind the scenes", preparatory, sometimes verbally agressive behaviour one can get which is one of the reasons why I try to avoid platforms or foras that do not have rules of conduct... On the other hand, it is often at such online places, when people use masks and avatars, that the truth comes out. It can feel safer to speak the truth, share a secret, when wearing a mask, an online mask that can give you an illusion of secrecy.

I say illusion of secrecy because online it is only an illusion. We can be both on stage and behind the scenes, for some spectators there's no difference.

Jun 20 2013:
I recall some tv show thief of saying something to the effect that there is no impregnable system, only ones that are more difficult to over come than others, so it all boils down to opportunity and motive.

I agree...our world is what it is, and we can act accordingly....assume that we have no privacy!

I choose #1 Arkady...."avoid doing or saying anything that we may later regret..."
I find this way of communicating not only "safer", but also more peaceful.

When I was a wee little lass, my mother asked the question....what if everyone in the world knew what you are doing or saying? At that time, we didn't have the instant connections with communication systems that we have now, and she was using it as a way of teaching a lesson. That seed was planted in my brain a very long time ago, it is still there, and I feel it is a GREAT foundation, which influences my communications on all levels.

This is another way to balance our perception of privacy, as well as balance our life, because it is important to "know thyself" to be able to communicate accurately, with honesty and respect.

Comment deleted

Jun 17 2013:
The recent news about the Ohio man who managed to keep 3 kidnapped women in his home for over a decade without raising suspicion of his neighbors is a great example of how privacy can be misused.

You make a great point that any social interaction takes away our privacy. We can live isolated lives and give up all conveniences of modern life, but are we willing to do so? And if we are not willing to do so, why do we complain about the lack of privacy?

I visited your web site. I admire what you do in this age of consumerism. You seem to enjoy a lot of privacy. But this privacy comes at a price - you have to give up many conveniences. And even then, as social beings, we cannot live without exchange. You can't live completely "off the grid" - you use internet, you publish books, and even post online the pictures of your home inside.

Re: "we have to make sure we are not part of the problem and reason for the snooping."

I think, this should be the major concern, not privacy. I would add, the government needs to make sure that it's not part of the problem and the reason for people hiding underground and keeping their secrets.

Comment deleted

I have a wife and 3 kids and my house that sucks out my bank account is choked with stuff that I don't need. I think, I would much rather have your lifestyle than the one of a billionaire.

"We are all just prisoners here, of our own device"...

"Last thing I remember, I was
Running for the door
I had to find the passage back
To the place I was before
"Relax, " said the night man,
"We are programmed to receive.
You can check-out any time you like,
But you can never leave! "

Definitely, government is not the greatest threat to my freedom and privacy. I am.

The 4th Amendment of the US Constitution is often referenced when discussing privacy. But the amendment only indirectly invokes the concept of privacy. It directly invokes the concept of security.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Security is often the primary goal of privacy. Companies secure their data and documents by keeping them hidden. Governments do as well. The current US administration condemns the leaking of classified documents, because it believes such leaks to be a threat to national security.

So is personal security dependent on personal privacy? I believe so.
Is the security of democracy dependent on the personal privacy of the populace? I believe so.

Should I want to rob your house, does it help me to know that your key is under your doormat, and you're away for the weekend?

Would the Berlin Wall have fallen had the Stasi known every East German citizen involved, their location, correspondents and plans before the event?

In the future, should every member of our species be secure in their thoughts, or would this be unecessary for a free society?

What is a more realistic scenerio here on Earth: absolute transparency for the actions and intents of every human being, including law-abiding citizens, criminals, companies and governments, or absolute transparency for the governed populace under a government cloaked in secrecy?

Jun 27 2013:
In today's world I'm probably a dying breed but I put that down to when I was very young and working at a hospital. 27 years ago privacy and patient rights was taken as normal and having health professionals all through the family, one takes it as normal.

That man that said " too many stories" told you a lot and everything about himself Colleen, some or a lot of people out there don't have 1/5th of the life experience that you have and others on here and that can make them ugly.

Have you ever heard of the term " Subjective vampirism?" For a quick five minutes when I first heard of the term I thought "I must assess what I have done and what I absorbed from others who have lived a more fuller life so as not to be confused what is mine and not mine"

Jun 27 2013:
You are right Ken....people tell us a LOT about themselves. I believe we can only give to others that which we have in our hearts, so if someone is behaving in an "ugly" way, it simply shows us that is what s/he has in her/his heart.

I also am very conscious of confidentiality, after working/volunteering with so many agencies which have a vulnerable population. It helps for all of us to be honest and truthful about the information we put on line about ourselves.

I have not heard of "Subjective vampirism"....would you share more information about it?

Jun 27 2013:
Re: "it simply shows us that is what s/he has in her/his heart."

I also hold an opinion that what we say about other people characterizes us more than it characterizes those other people. It's useful to keep this in mind when judging others.

It's funny, as I say that, I can see how this can be viewed as a snide remark or a hypocritical opinion if what I say is directed to someone personally, but, again the way we see what others say characterizes us rather than those other people - hypocrisy is in the eye of the beholder. "we see things as we are, not as they are". Essentially, what I say here is the meaning of "if the shoe fits..." idiom.

That's the enigma of those self-referring statements of which I wrote earlier: "this statement is true" is impossible to either prove or refute.

Jun 28 2013:
Arkady's right and he has a far better grasp of the english written language than me, if i tried to tap an explanation it would probably come across as hypocritical and pompous. Cool, I'll ask Arkady next time when i'm wrestling with a difficult explanation i want to put across.

It's a long story with that term Colleen but i think for those of us that have only 1/4 of the life experience that you have and are open or receptive and curious about others lives they can sometimes get lost in anothers life.....I hope she wasn't hinting to me, this person can be coercive and not in a constructive manner either. I don't believe it myself but what happens when you've been around people that make you feel they are sucking the life out of you or feel like they are black holes, creepy.

When are you going to write that book? I'll buy it. Everyone here should write a book.

Jun 20 2013:
I have only just linked my real name to my central email accounts and to be honest, i think i should not have done that as google is always working. Back track a search and the way too get me is through fb. It's disturbing to know they do not delete your account and what's worse is fb's tempting app messenger which combines all messaging into one ui. someone has to slap the zuckerberg guy, personal messaging is personal.

Jun 21 2013:
I also think that Facebook is more invasive than Google. I believe, Facebook, actually, can sell your information to third parties while Google just uses this information to provide their own services to marketers.

What I also don't like about Facebook is that they can change their privacy policy without notice and sharing my information is, usually "opt-out", not "opt-in" which means that I have to find an obscure check box in deliberately confusing interface to prevent Facebook from sharing my data.

I also keep myself logged out of Facebook. If you don't do that, Facebook will know about all web sites you visit. See the little FB and Twitter logos on this page? I just find it time consuming to manage privacy levels on who sees what.

Google and Facebook are pushing people to tag faces on pictures. I avoid doing that. They seem to use face recognition software to tag faces on all other pictures they have.

Jun 27 2013:
Yes, it is very time consuming. I also find that changing the privacy policy is at least undemocratic. There are millions of people on facebook and it serves different purposes for different people. Unmoderated groups are one thing, attention seekers with thousands of "friends" and followers and then the fact that, well, it's actually pretty difficult to really communicate there. Maybe some of you heard of the example of a youngster somewhere in Europe who accidentally invited thousands of people to a party, I guess it was in France, it was all over the news as it almost led to violence.

Facebook has a lot of pictures of mine, some of them were tagged before, I removed the tags, but it doesn't mean that there aren't a lot of people who might look like me, this is a bit scary. Another thing - what I'm missing is the very simple "are you sure you want to do that?" Add, remove, send etc. Also - getting yourself out of facebook is a) difficult b) may cause some questions from others (why aren't you on facebook anymore, don't you like us? or me? - I got that once when I deactivated my account after discovering that I don't really use facebook. I came back because of some peer pressure i.e. didn't you see on facebook that we were supposed to meet?) I've met people with different approaches but it actually seems that all of them can be against you at some point, but all of that can be fixed, I hope. It is good to have people liking what you put out, it's not ok to sit around judging people by what you post without really asking why you do it and what you mean.

I'm logged out of facebook, I sometimes look at it, check it.
But the e-mail is there most of the time and I see strange information there as well - somebody logging in from platform I don't use, from places I haven't visited... And also the smartphone era - 3G is worse than Wifi when it comes to location and check-ins. A lot of issues to be resolved there, on many levels.

Jun 27 2013:
Pat has pointed me to this talk some time ago http://www.ted.com/talks/matt_ridley_when_ideas_have_sex.html . Discussion was related to economic exchange, jobs going to China, etc. But this talk seems to have much deeper implications. People seem to divide things into "created" and "natural" (or "evolved"). Debates between evolution and creationism are still raging.

But think of technology. Is it, really, "created" by humans? Do we really have any control of what technology emerges where? Reading about Manhattan project, it seems to me that once there is capability for technology to exist, it WILL be created by somebody. The question is not "if", but "when". There are mechanisms beyond control of individuals or governments to prevent this from happening. Technology follows the same laws of evolution as living organisms. I would like to start a TED conversation about it some day - another "creation" vs. "evolution" discussion with a twist.

With that said, it seems to me that we have no choice but to accept the existence of these technologies as reality and deal with it like we deal with existence of animals, say, bears, which may occasionally break into our car or steal our camping food supply.

I have a Facebook account, but I don't post anything there that I would be uncomfortable to share with EVERYONE.

Jun 27 2013:
As I said - a lot of things to be resolved. I probably need to do something with the facebook account I have but, as I said, it is not always so obvious how people react to things. Or, more importantly, how facebook reacts, isn't that a bit more important when discussing evolution of technology? (I'm replying to your comment, not the general social problem/development/era-thing)

Perhaps it will encourage some folks to make better choices?, as Colleen said.

When it comes to posting - sometimes a little click or confusion as to who sees what may lead to trouble, as in the example I provided. There are others and misunderstandings of this type are countless.

EDIT - just to add one point that was mentioned before - facebook can do whatever they want without really asking the users/user if that's ok with them. You can argue that that's just the way it is, but to me, that's not a valid argument.

It seems to agree with my point that we have trouble understanding trends and models which go beyond our personal experience, such as global social trends or historic events that go beyond our lifetime or, even human history (climate change cycles). This is regarding your note that we have trouble understanding how these corporate decisions are made.

It's seen even here on TED. It's fascinating to watch how much anxiety is caused by these on-line interactions. To me it feels like watching these storm clouds in the recent TED talk.

Have you heard of Big Data Analytics? But anyway, climate is one thing, society is another.
Anxiety is caused by on-line interactions, that's true, but in my case (just to be rational) - since I haven't done anything illegal or broke any rules... you get the picture. I understand what irrationality is though and how a discussion can get heated. What I'm thinkling right now when responding is the very thing you yourself are saying - this is fascinating. I may have different experience and perspective, but I guess we can agree on that.

Again - it's true that there are models and trends that can be difficult to understand because you have to go beyond your personal experience. I do not know yours, you do not know mine so this is just a discussion.

Storm cloud in a teapot, this old saying just came to me, is that what you meant?

I wish I had a link to a talk now, but there's no one talk or link I can think of, I'll get back to that.

Exactly. What we see when we stir sugar in a glass of tea or flush the toilet is the same pattern that we see in a storm cloud http://www.ted.com/talks/camille_seaman_photos_from_a_storm_chaser.html... is the same pattern that we see in a galaxy... is the same pattern that we see in a spread of a "viral video" or a viral disease or a cycle of violence or a cycle of mutual insults or a religion which grows "like a mustard seed" which is symbolic of life, etc.

Jun 27 2013:
Ken and Arkady,
I was very hesitant about providing information about myself when I first started using the computer. I now feel that it is a GREAT tool, and if we want to use it, we can find and encourage a balance.

I discovered that there is information "out there" about me whether or not I choose to have it "out there". Luckily, the information I have found, simply verifies the information I've given about myself.

A person on TED once told me that I had too many stories....they were not believable. Well, they weren't believable to him obviously, and that's ok. However, many of them can be verified on line. The local and regional boards I served on, and continue to serve on for example, are all a matter of public record, and minutes of the meetings, as well as other information are on line.

Because I was somewhat of a locally "known" character at the time of my head injury (actor, model, Mrs. Vermont, etc.), there were newspaper articles at the time of the accident and follow-up articles. It was kind of weird at first, when I started getting out and going to the local store.....everyone was asking me how I'm doing, talking to me like I was an old friend, with kindness and compassion. It was really very heartwarming.

You ask in your introduction Arkady...."Does it mean that we should not pay attention to each other?"
Perhaps it means that we can pay MORE attention to each other? Perhaps it will encourage some folks to make better choices? I'd like to plant the seed my mother planted many moons ago. How would you feel, if everyone in the world knew what you were doing or saying right now?

Jun 27 2013:
What you're sharing here, Colleen, made me think of a couple of things:

- I should really google more often ;-)
- there are so many untold stories out there, a lot of them could be so heartwarming, others - thought-provoking. After reading your comment I actually thought the following - why didn't I share more of mine or wrote them in a poetic or often individual way, sometimes that could be confusing to some. One example - I once began telling a friend about some experiences I had while being a newbie in a newspaper. The positive ones, of course. She opened her eyes and said "can I touch you? wow" I wasn't expecting that, I thought the reaction would be "who do you think you are?"

"How would you feel, if everyone in the world knew what you were doing or saying right now?"

That's why people need privacy, I think, especially in the world today where surveillance is omnipresent and the recordings can be misused. I sometimes stumble upon videos with names like "funny man in the toilet" and such. I don't think that's funny for that man to be filmed and out there on the net. Paradoxically, I do enjoy watching such videos at times (and have to use them at work in a different context), but I will not tag them to laugh at anybody.

I agree that we should pay attention to one another. But not too much attention and not unwanted attention, that's a different thing.

It's a bit boring and could benefit from some visuals, but the content is excellent. We don't trust unfamiliar things, but as we get more familiar with them, we feel more secure. E.g. knowing what Google does with our information makes people more comfortable using Google. Even though it does not change the reality, people feel safer and "in control" when they know what to expect. On the other side, Facebook practice of changing privacy policies without notice makes people perceive Facebook as more invasive, where as Google practices might be a lot worse.

I also feel that having information about ourselves online can serve as protection from slander and false accusations by providing multiple cross-references which cannot be faked. Sometimes, however, a piece of information on the Internet can come from one dubious source and spread all around the web - people referring to the same myth copied over and over, creating an illusion of credibility. I see that a lot with "research shows" statements (not to question anything that you say, Coleen).

Even having some uncomfortable stuff online can, in fact, help us. Many people fight their own demons and have their own weaknesses and "hot buttons". It may help people to be more sensitive to each other.

Jun 27 2013:
Just to add another thought to what you're saying, Colleen.

You say that a computer is a great tool, I agree. What I'm thinking about when responding to our comment is a debate, or an interview, I saw on youtube - Richard Dawkins was responding to a question from a person living in an opressive society (link to another conversation that is ongoing - what is worse). The question was fairly simple - what am I supposed to do? The answer was also simple - internet. Reaching out may be a good idea. I sometimes wonder why some voices on the net are more visible than others. I have some thoughts on that but am not sure where to post them really, it's a complex world.

Jun 28 2013:
Thanks Anna, I should've known this, I only have an account at Fb for family overseas but they are pushing me to use skype yet i'am hesitant, for some reason vidding to them doesn't feel like they are far away.....A hold over from the days of letters and expensive phone calls?

I also agree that children getting addicted to the internet is a growing problem, one of the issues to be resolved. Balance, individual needs, education and properly regulating time of usage must be taken into consideration when adressing this. Online learning has potential, but there are great points in the video.

Getting addicted to being online all the time has its risks. Probably some of he commenters have heard of a girl somewhere in Asia dying because of addiction to MMORPG. Her team travelled to be at her funeral, that showed how deep the bond betwen her and the others were although it was only online. Two points - online exchange of thoughts in a chatroom may bring people together without risk of being subject to any form of pysical abuse, but there can also be problems and hostility, we've even seen it here in this conversation.

I used to get addicted to games, I remember sitting for months in front of the computer. When I was already grandmaster of everything in the game and tried every game modification possible I got bored. My mother used to bring me food and take plates away after a couple of hours - the plates were not empty, I was so much in the game that I didn't really feel like eating. I sometimes paused to take a bite of something, but in certain games you cannot pause and young people do not have this balance.

This is not necessarily bad but having all life online has its risks.

I remember when I was done with the game, came back to studies after vacation and started doing something else - travelling here and there, singing in a choir and travelliing with them my mother made a comment - "That is good, you will be among people."

I got internet when I was about 17, it changed a lot. I have so many stories and perspectives to share on this that the fact that I've got less than 129 characters remaining will probably make me start a new conversation :)

Jun 29 2013:
Wow! I can semi relate but from what you posted and being a young woman it's time you bring this great experience to the wider community and audition at your local Tedx or if there isn't one Anna then organize one. Forgive me for sounding coercive but your post is brilliant, There must be millions of young women hard gamers that can relate, i jump into a gamer forum usually full of young males, i'm the oldest. There's a few young women but not a lot. I'm there for the forum storyline RP community creations. They are just young gamers full of exuberance for the franchise but some have a writers talent.

I haven't seen all the Ted vids but I'm sure there hasn't been one female gamer talk?

Jun 17 2013:
there is a common misconception that privacy is a right. it isn't. just as healthcare or food is not a right. they are all things that we need to create for ourselves with effort, and we need to balance the costs versus the benefits. and everyone has to work on his own privacy, according to his own preferences, capabilities and situation.

if the government / a company / a stalker spies on us, it is immoral? not inherently. if said entity breaks into my computer, or physically breaks into my house, steals my phone, it is immoral, criminal act. if he uses lies and deception, he might be subjected to legal action, forced to pay compensation or something. but if he uses technology to spy on me, it is not against any moral laws. it is my task to defend my privacy, either myself, or buy the services of an expert.

any calls for stricter regulations are misguided. what we need is better tools, better understanding, better industry standards. so privacy can be an option for those that value it.

Jun 18 2013:
for example in turkey. we can safely say that if a right just does not exist, it also does not exist in turkey. turkey is not that special a place. pi is 3.14... there too. plants photosynthesize. it is just another country.

no, you don't have the right to healthcare, it is a lie. what you have is a system of confiscation and handouts. it is not a right, it is a limitation to a right.

Jun 18 2013:
not a definition, but a necessary attribute: a right is something that every person naturally have, and can lose only due to an immoral act of another individual.

thus life for example is not a right. you can die at any moment from disease or accident. not being murdered is a right. you will never get murdered unless someone actively and purposefully murders you, which is an immoral criminal act.

having property is not a right. your property not being taken away by others is a right. if you don't have property, this is just an unlucky state of affairs. if your property gets struck by a lightning, it is bad luck. but your property can only be stolen if someone deliberately steals it. this is an criminal act, and you have the right not to be offended this way.

in other words, all rights are negative. you don't have right to something. you have rights to be free of some things, like aggression, theft, murder or fraud.

privacy is not a right. but also, not being spied on is also not a right. the right to privacy just a consequence and case of property rights. i can hide in my house, i can close my window, i can use cryptography. and i have a right not to be interfered with such use of my own property. any kinds of spying on me that does not involve violation of my property rights is not (or should not) be a criminal act.

I was following your definition fine as something is not necessarily a right but not having it taken away is a right, although that does sound a bit odd. Then you somehow created the exception of having your privacy taken away not being the same, without explaining why you feel its an exception.
The logic does not follow.

I feel, rights are things that government agree a citizen may have and enforces. What or why they are is not the issue.

Just as laws can be changed with the stroke of a pen by someone in authority, so can rights. Here in Canada we used to have the "right" to fish without a license then one day, stroke of a pen, now we need a license.

Now if Canadians had rose up in anger against the government and refused to comply creating more stress on the government than was reasonable for the licenses to be in place, the government probably would have relented, and the "right" to fish without a license upheld.

If all the citizens INSIST on privacy voting out those that oppose it and voting IN those that support it, we will tend to have laws that will uphold that "right." Otherwise, stroke of a pen, it's gone.

Two final thing I would say about "rights" its a hell of a lot harder to GET THEM than it is to keep them tough as that may seem.

Lastly, when it comes to privacy, expect it to be violated right or no right. We have plenty of laws and the jails are filled with people breaking them, and of course governments are above the law.

Jun 18 2013:
I think, anything can be claimed as a right as long as we can physically obtain it and defend it. In a desert, it does not matter whether you have a right to have water or not. There is no water. And if I cannot defend my life and liberty - physically or legally, I do not have any rights for them. Same with privacy. I have the right to as much privacy as I can get and defend.

Surveillance is not inherently immoral. Trust and intentions matter. Parents installing a video camera in a child's room to ensure the child's safety are violating the child's privacy. But the child trusts that the parents won't harm the child and the parents intend good for the child. Issues with privacy arise when either trust or good intentions are lacking.

Jun 18 2013:
but that definition would include slave keeping as a right. i disagree.

according to my moral, surveillance per se is never immoral. of course you can condemn it, and you can refuse to cooperate with a person that engages in such activities. but we can not in general say anything about it, regardless of the intent. only the method counts. if he installs a bino on his roof, and it is not against any contract he made, it is not immoral. though, as i have said, it can be against my taste, and i can try to do against it, within my rightful possibilities. for example call him out for it, and make him a hated person in the town.

Jun 18 2013:
My definition is a practical one. In many societies of the past, keeping slaves was a right. Perhaps, it wasn't moral by today's standards, but, I believe, in those societies, slavery was accepted both morally and legally. In most modern societies, one cannot legally defend slave keeping, therefore, it is not a right any more.

I may not have a legal right, but if I can claim it and rally enough people for the cause, I can create a legal right. This is what happened with civil rights movement in U.S. in the sixties.

A necessary element for having a right is claiming it. Government can use your own words against yourself in court if you give them incriminating information knowing that you have the right not to do so, but not invoking this right.

People waive their rights very often. E.g., when the police was combing Boston neighborhood for Tsarnaev, I don't think, it was constitutional for the police to force their way into people's property. But, given the situation, perhaps, nobody thought to rise this issue. When people routinely waive their right, they lose it altogether (e.g. TSA searches in the airports).

Jun 18 2013:
we have to know better. i recall a debate between the catholic church and atheists. at one point, catholic guy said: we can't expect a catholic person of 1400 to know that witch hunt is not a moral behavior, since it was the norm. the atheist opponent asked: then what are you for?

moral can not dependent on culture. moral must be absolute. if something is not absolute, it can not be a moral statement. all of my contribution to this discussion is supposed to be absolute. if you have a counterargument, i might be proven wrong. but what i said, can not be a matter of opinion. either i'm right or i'm wrong. there is no third way.

Jun 19 2013:
A wise Zen frog was explaining to the younger frogs the balance of nature: "Do you see how that fly eats a gnat? And now (with a bite) I eat the fly. It is all part of the great scheme of things."
"Isn't it bad to kill in order to live?" asked the thoughtful frog.
"It depends . . ." answered the wise frog just as a snake swallowed the Zen frog in one chomp before the frog finished his sentence.
"Depends on what?" shouted the students.
"Depends on whether you're looking at things from the inside or outside," came the muffled response from inside the snake.

Would you use force (aggression) to stop aggression? If so, how do you reconcile it with the non-aggression principle?

How property rights are determined? What guarantees them? Are there limits on what can be "owned"? Ownership of information is controversial. When I buy a bottle of beer and pay with my credit card - who owns the information about this transaction? I? The seller? The credit card company? Or is the information just "out there", like the air, with no owner? Ownership rights seem to depend on what you can physically or legally protect.

Jun 20 2013:
How do you know that nonaggression is moral? You can't say that humans are non-aggressive by nature and being aggressive violates some natural law, can you? I am not saying that aggression is moral. My point is that morality of non-aggression does not seem to follow from any natural law.

Jun 19 2013:
the nonaggression principle is a misnomer. what it means is the non-initiation of aggression. aggression to stop aggression is fine. obviously, you can not use excessive amount of aggression. you have to aim for the necessary minimum that stops the initial aggression.

property rights are not guaranteed by anything, they just are. property can be anything that is scarce. in modern theory, one can own usage rights for physical objects, like a view of a mountain range, or a smell of the air. ownership is created by being the first to claim it, or by voluntary transfer. information can not be owned, it is not scarce.

it is not fundamentally important or interesting who defends property rights. it is the same thing as with our present legal system. having a right and being able to protect it are two different things. we have a law enforcement system that operates with a margin of error, just like any other system does. but it does not affect moral. stealing will be immoral even if the system fails to catch you. if you are the victim, you are still the legal owner of the stolen item, regardless of your inability to use it. it would be weird to say that you are not anymore the owner of the item, because the system failed.

Jun 19 2013:
Re: "property rights are not guaranteed by anything"
I would argue that rights which are not guaranteed by anything are not meaningful.

Re: "information can not be owned, it is not scarce."
This seems to mean that you do not acknowledge rights to intellectual property. Is it correct?

Re: "it is not fundamentally important or interesting who defends property rights."
When the government takes away your property for whatever reason (taxes, public land use, etc.), you are not the owner any more, are you? What you think does not seem to matter. What matters is what you can prove in court. Don't you think so?

Regarding "first claim" and "voluntary transfer". Consider Palestinian land captured by Israeli government and voluntarily transferred to Israeli citizens by the government. Who is the rightful owner? Consider property expropriated by the Soviet government decades ago with new legal owners (according to the new legal system) living there. The heirs of the previous owner show up. Who has the right to the property? Is there an absolute answer to these questions?

Jun 19 2013:
listen, be a little more cooperative. of course rights are supposed to be guarded by organizations, individuals, etc. but that is not the source of a right. the right exists in an empty universe too, it exists in wars, and in a hunter gatherer tribe. just it is not respected. rights do not have sources. they exist as a a part of nature.

IP rights are not moral rights, they are just creations of an unholy alliance between the state and huge corporations. it is an instrument of aggression. IP rights are not rights, they are actually violations of rights.

if the government takes away anything from me, i remain the rightful owner, and the government is an unlawful aggressor. surely, it is in accordance with their own laws, but those laws are not real laws, just an instrument of oppression. calling them laws is nothing but propaganda.

a government can not capture a land, and can not own one. a government is not a person, and only person's can own property. unowned land can be homesteaded by anyone.

If you say that rights and morality exist in nature, you must admit that nature has a sense of justice. Then you cannot say that moral judgment is not applicable to acts of nature. Do animals have the right of not being killed by a predator and consumed for food? (see the Zen story above).

When people say "natural" or "unnatural", they can mean a number of things - "occurring in nature", "traditional", or "aesthetically pleasing". It seems to me, you understand morality as "natural" in the same sense as Abraham Lincoln who said "When I do good, I feel good. When I do bad, I feel bad. That's my religion."

Ownership is a strange concept. Most frequently, it is linked with control. Philosophically, we do not own or control anything - even our own body. I think that rights are a matter of belief. Faith, if this word does not scare you. I think, the sense of justice is irrational, emotional and subconscious - impossible to explain logically. We can leave it at that.

Jun 20 2013:
something being part of nature does not imply consciousness or intention on part of nature. the world is full of spiral galaxies. we can't say though that nature has a sense of aesthetics, and it likes spirals. those spirals are just epiphenomena of simpler laws of physics. rights are similarly epiphenomena of the same physics combined with human traits. life forms with different traits might have different rights. for example a bee-hive like imaginary intelligent life form might lack the concept of the "individual", therefore property rights apply to hives.

ownership is the right to control. it does not imply actual ability. for example if i'm in the office, i can't control my fridge at home. but i still own it. i guy in jail does not lose ownership of his stuff. just temporarily can't access his property. rights are always in the "ought to" domain, not in the "is" domain.

i don't know. moral is not something you can derive from observations. some people attempted to logically derive the nonaggression principle as the only valid moral code. i think they are failed, and i also think that it is not possible. we have to *assert* that it is the good way to go. i'm trying to show why it is good. i can also show what certain counterarguments mean or what follows from them. if you dig deep enough, all other moral systems lead to either self contradiction or very ugly logical consequences we usually don't agree with.

"You can't say that humans are non-aggressive by nature"

i also cannot say that people don't rape. yet, i say that rape is immoral. natural law does not mean it is respected in pre-industrial societies. it only means it should have been. because natural law does not have a source, other than reality itself. one can not decide that murder is not immoral. it is not up to decision. your right for your body comes from the reality of the universe. if you are a slave in ancient rome, your right to your body is violated.

Jun 20 2013:
Just to add a little more clarity to the morality issue, not that I disagree.

The definition of morality is what is agreed to by a culture. This clouds the subject because what is real to one culture is not to another. E.G. in a mafia run Sicilian culture it might be immoral to not kill someone, or in a Nazi culture it is immoral not to execute a Jew, or in a Sharia culture and it is immoral to not kill an infidel.

A more workable benchmark on this subject is survival which translates beyond your own survival. A person survives through others. It would be shortsighted to think that you only survive for your own benefit.

This allows a person to gauge whether something creates more survival for all involved or not.

Jun 21 2013:
Re: "i don't know. moral is not something you can derive from observations. some people attempted to logically derive the nonaggression principle as the only valid moral code. i think they are failed, and i also think that it is not possible. we have to *assert* that it is the good way to go."

So, does it mean that you agree with my thesis that for rights to exist, we must a) claim them (assert or declare) and b) defend them or have some sort of physical or legal guarantee.

I understand "self-evident" in the Declaration of Independence as something that provides evidence for itself. At the time when the Declaration was made, there was no such evidence. But all subsequent history shows that a system built on this principle is good and stable.

But the first step is not based on evidence, it's based on faith, an irrational moral belief which later "proves itself". You seem to agree that moral principles do not follow from evidence or logic, don't you?